Calzaer

If any of the Big Three Christian-like religions (Jeudaism, Catholicism, Protestantism) is correct, Protestantism, when examined critically, gets a big "Sucks to be You" (even moreso than Catholicism gets when examined critically).

Protestants have been basically "winging it" since the inception of the movement. Luther (or, more precisely, his later adherents, since Luther never meant to break away from the church) walked away from the only Christian church in existance since the beginning to basically start his own version, but without the benefit of having the original founders of Christianity around for guidance. Tracing the liniage, you basically end up chosing who to believe: Luther, or St. Peter. Luther's got some pretty big shoes to fill there, since he hadn't been travelling around with Jesus for a number of years before starting his church.

Even if you argue that the Catholic church came out of Paul, not Peter, who spent just as much time in close proximity to Jesus as Luther had, there are still serious problems when compared to the original church.

For instance, Luther's Sola Scriptura doctrine makes no sense when put into context. In order to believe Sola Scriptura, one has to forget that the Biblical canon was put together by taking the books that *conformed to oral tradition*. Oral tradition was used to select the "inspired" books; but Luther turned around and said the inspired books had nothing to do with the oral tradition.

And then, to add insult to injury, after composing Sola Scriptura, he went on to unilaterally throw out several books of the canonical old testament, as well as 5 of the 7 sacrements that had been around since the Council of Nicea.

Further, and perhaps most damaging, to Protestantism, is I Corinthians 14:33, which states "God is not the author of confusion". How does this screw further with the Protestant movement?

Consider that in its 2000-odd years of existence, the Catholic church has had one major split; the split between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. This split was entirely political; the two branches are theologically identical. But within mere decades of the Protestat Reformation, the movement had broken into multiple factions, all using Sola Scriptura and all, paradoxically, differing on strong theological grounds. Today, while there are still only two mostly-identical versions of the Catholic Church, there is an uncountable number of Protestant "denominations", some (like Anglicans) attempting to be exactly like Catholicism with only one or two minor theological differences. Others, like Pentecostal, are about as far from Catholic as one can get. You won't ever see Catholics speaking in tongues, or throwing poisonous snakes at each other in church.
If God is truly not the author of confusion (which Protestans *must* believe *unquestioningly* because of Sola Scriptura), then it follows logically that the Protestant movement cannot be a movement from God.

Finally, there's the issue of God's intervention. In the entire history of the Protestant movement, there hasn't been a single miracle performed by its adherents that wasn't paid for first. No accounts of people flying into the air, or having amazing mystical visions, or laying on hands (under circumstances not conducive to profit, anyway), or statues crying, or graves of prominent Protestants that heal cancer, or anything. It's almost like God stopped talking to the Protestants. The reason there aren't any Protestant saints isn't because of theological differences over the idea of sainthood, it's because not a single Protestant in history has ever qualified. Even if the Pope WANTED to make a protestant saint, he couldn't. And it's pretty obvious that the things that qualify for "miracle" status are pretty easy to meet, particularly from an atheist point of view (that being all miracles are frauds). Either no Protestant has ever had a miraculous gift from God (that they weren't using to fund the church swimming pool with), or else no Protestant has had the intelligence to put forth a halfway plausible hoax.

So, in conclusion, if any of the Christian-like religions are correct, the choice falls between Jeudaism and Catholicism (with the edge going to the Jews, but that's a whole 'nother rant). Protestantism is the biggest load of "making it up as you go" to ever emerge from the religious potluck. It puts Ecclectic Wicca to shame, and thus can't possibly be correct according to its own definitions.

~Cal

mike_decock

I very much agree with you. The only nit I would pick is that there was quite a diversity of beliefs in the various Christian churches before the Council of Nicea (Gnostics, etc).

-Mike...

Calzaer

That's very true. I'd forgotten about that.

However, I doubt that the various Protestant denominations could organize an official council for the purpose of unifying into a cohesive set of beliefs.

Entropic_Gnosis

Another point of nit picking, that is the similarities between the Roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox churches, while they both are niceian faiths there are some marked differences in practice as well as theology. The EO is more mystical in nature and thus tends not to focus on the litteral nature of God in the leagalistic sense that the RC does. There are more prevalant elements of Gnosticism in the east (or were at the time of the split and for the several centuries after, much beyond that i know very little) the RC is more strictly hierarchical and leagalistic and as such has a more strict litteral view of the nature of god and of the sacred writings, this was not so much the case in the east. While the split was political it also had strong religious overtones (much of it had to do with iconclasm) and while the basic beliefs are in effect the same (as are the core of all christian beliefs) the nature of the practice is very different. I saw an eastern orthodox ceremony once and what struck me is how much more personal it was even granting the large number of people, and in subsequent research and conversation i have come to undestand that this is the general nature of the EO practice. As a former catholic i recall a very formal atmosphere to the procedings even when the number of people was quite small. So there is certanly a contrast. Anyone who has more information on the nature of EO theology and practice please let me know (especially info about the middle ages as its not easy to find when 85% of the medieval litteraure has to do with the west, at my college at any rate)

Appius

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought Luther broke away, because the Catholic Church was wrong. The sale of indulgences was an erring from the scripture, something which the Catholic Church later discontinued. The deal with indulgences is a serious issue, so I see no misjudgement on his part to stay with a wandering Church.

I believe what was going on here was that the popes had written the books he threw out. As for the sacraments he keep the Lord's Supper and Baptism, and Confession is labeled as a maybe. The definition for a sacrament for Luther was they had to be for the forgiveness of sins, be instituted by God, and contain an earthly element. I am not sure where this definition comes from, but on these grounds he claimed that marriage and the last Right for instance where not sacraments. Marriage on the grounds it was not for the forgiveness of sins, and the last Rights was not instituted by God. Also, Confession is a maybe since the only earthly element could be the priest.

In fact some protestant groups believe that Catholics are wrong. Furthermore, the Pentecostals you mentioned are considered radical. For instance, Baptists, Quakers, Assemblies of God, and Pentecostals are all included under what is termed the "Free Church", which includes the most radical (that is a deviation from the other Protestants). As for the verse it is meant to affirm truth of God's word. Of course, then one has everyone claiming that their way is right.

I think that the fact that Luther escaped from being killed by the Church would be a miracle in itself, but of course anyone is welcome to disagree. Also, there is a bit of a rift between the Catholic Church and the Protestants, so it really makes it easier for there to not be a Protestant saint.
There also could be a third reason that you have not heard of a Protestant miracle- they do not make a push to publicize miracles, rather everything done is God's will.

mike_decock

Luther believed the Catholic church was wrong. I'm certain that, at the time at least, the Catholic church believed it was right.

The real issue with Luther is that he took removed many books from the Bible and rejected the traditions and interpretations of the founding fathers. Protesting the sale of indulgences is peanuts compared to that level of hubris.

I was raised in an AoG church and you're right. They think all the Catholics are going to Hell. In fact, my parents were missionaries to Belgium (a country which is 90% Catholic) to convert them to Christianity (which Catholics aren't, in their opinion).

The radical Protestants are very fond of faith healers and miracles. The ones that were heavily publicized (like Peter Popoff) were revealed to be frauds. Supposedly Popoff is back in business... Just goes to show that Christians are quick to forgive and forget those who lie for Jesus

-Mike...

Calzaer

You're presupposing the opposite position in order to defeat this one. It's begging the question.

The Popes wrote books in the OLD Testament??

First: He had 94 other complaints.
Second: You're presupposing the validity of Sola Scriptura, while ignoring the arguments against it.

Why is Luther's definition better than Peter's?

No kidding? Naw, I never would have guessed.
You realize that's even MORE confusion, right?

And that's not confusing?
The movements that have no lineage behind them are 'authors of confusion' and therefore cannot be from God.

So that's why all those guys on TV promise to heal the sick if we call in and give them our credit-card numbers?

Tercel

Hi Calzaer,

As someone brought up Protestant, who has since rejected many of the Protestant teachings in favour of Eastern Orthodox ones, I agree with much of what you are saying. I completely agree about the problems of Sola Scriptura.

However, that said, much of what you say is problematic.

That's simply not true. They have numerous theological differences: Perhaps even more than Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

You won't? From what I've read, Roman Catholics (as a whole) buy into the idea of speaking in tongues.

Now you are talking utter rubbish. Protestants have endless claims of miracles. Some of which I find believeable. Unlike the Roman Catholics they have no authoritative body to investigate the claims though (Not that I trust the RC's "let's-make-lots-of-saints" miracle authentication process).

Appius

I am not sure what you mean here. Obviously each side will think they are right.

Luther said the books he threw out were written by the Popes. Sirach, not sure on the spelling, was one of them. This is something I am remembering from a while back, so I will see if I can find some support; otherwise feel free to disregard.


I am aware of his 95 theses, but the sale of indulgences was a very important issue, that is from the Protestant side of course. I am sure the Catholic Church would put an emphasis on Luther throwing out some books.
Well, I am just saying that if it is scripture alone, then there is nothing supporting the sale of indulgences. In other words the Bible does not support buying the foregivness of sins.
A question, is your argument against the scripture alone that oral tradition was used to select the inspired books? If so it is just that God would have had the right books chosen anyways.

I guess I should clarify. On the basis of Scripture alone Protestants say that the Catholic Church is wrong. That is if something can not be supported from the Bible it should not be done. For instance, Catholics pray to the saints to intercede on their behalf in front of God. Protestants on the other hand say there is no basis for this in the Bible, so it is not acceptable.


Ah, here is were the Protestant's and Catholics differ greatly. For Protestants tradition holds no sway; it is the word alone.

I think it seems really confusing, but if one looks at the reasons behind the motivations it immediately becomes clear. Protestants are motivated by the scripture alone, whereas Catholics by tradition and the word.

So I guess the argument sort of boils down to the Sola Scriptura.

Unfortunately the word protestant covers a lot of differnet groups. Not all of them believe that evangelists correctly represent Christianity

Appius

Your right if you are looking at it from neither veiw point. I got a little involved-perhaps you can tell I am Protestant, Lutheran to be exact.

Now that would be from the Catholic point of veiw. The Protestants believe Luther was firmly in the right- I am going to check in on the reason he threw some books out. They believe he was in the right largely dealing with the scripture alone attitude.